Reply #60

In the discussion thread: Scalia Says Court Can’t Be Bothered To Read Obamacare: ‘You Really Want Us To Go Through These 2,700 [View all]

Response to Dont call me Shirley (Reply #11)

Wed Mar 28, 2012, 07:09 PM

KG (23,278 posts)

60. that's the function of the SC.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

164 replies	Author	Time	Post
Scalia Says Court Can’t Be Bothered To Read Obamacare: ‘You Really Want Us To Go Through These 2,700 [View all]	kpete	Mar 2012	OP
Then, Justice Scalia, why did you take the case? Do you want to rule in ignorance?	HubertHeaver	Mar 2012	#1
Nobody has ever read read Obamacare.	CAPHAVOC	Mar 2012	#15
It's called the Affordable Care Act.	truthisfreedom	Mar 2012	#44
We do now know Scalia won't take responsibility to read the case...s does his Jr.; Clarence Thomas.	FarPoint	Mar 2012	#45
Scalia should - he's a "textualist" (nothing else to read)	Land Shark	Mar 2012	#55
OMG...	FarPoint	Mar 2012	#69
The most important case in recent history?? He could at least skim through it.	nanabugg	Mar 2012	#86
Have you looked at the bill? Didn't think so.	harun	Mar 2012	#97
You must be a speed reader.	CAPHAVOC	Mar 2012	#101
Look at the .pdf. You'll see what I mean.	harun	Mar 2012	#129
I read legislation for a living and there is no way you read 90 percent of the ACA	onenote	Mar 2012	#132
Your missing the point, but I give up.	harun	Mar 2012	#135
NGU	Herlong	Mar 2012	#137
If the point was that you made up a totally unbelievable load about reading the ACA in an hour	onenote	Mar 2012	#139
Kagan worked on it.	CAPHAVOC	Mar 2012	#143
She also told him that's	burrowowl	Apr 2012	#159
This message was self-deleted by its author	Herlong	Mar 2012	#136
less than 2100 pgs, with 5 words/line each page, big whoop	wordpix	Apr 2012	#153
You might be able to look at that many pages in a few hours, but comprehend it? Not a chance	onenote	Apr 2012	#156
+1, exactly and no one asked them to go through the whole thing. He is just	harun	Apr 2012	#163
Not grandstanding. Making a point. The same as Breyer, who asked pretty much the same thing	onenote	Apr 2012	#164
I read it. It's important legislation, and it is your responsibility to be informed	Politicub	Mar 2012	#141
Do you mind my asking how long it took to read it?	onenote	Mar 2012	#142
Don't remember. It's been a while	Politicub	Mar 2012	#144
The reason I ask is that Hill staffers I know who had to review it when it was under consideration	onenote	Mar 2012	#145
Wonky is how I roll	Politicub	Mar 2012	#146
the pdf referred to here has about 5 words/line and would take little time to read a page	wordpix	Apr 2012	#154
See post #156	onenote	Apr 2012	#157
OK, say it takes 10 hr to read and understand fully, or 20 hr	wordpix	Apr 2012	#160
Probably more like 10 to 20 days.	onenote	Apr 2012	#161
Whaaaaaat?!	abelenkpe	Mar 2012	#2
He could divide up the work with his law clerks.	JDPriestly	Mar 2012	#3
You granted certiorari and you didn't have to.	The Velveteen Ocelot	Mar 2012	#4
If the Esteemed Justice can't be bothered to read the whole thing	anti-alec	Mar 2012	#5
Must be the job doesn't pay enough.	yankeepants	Mar 2012	#6
IMO, it's kind of absurd that a piece of legislation is 2700 pages to begin with.	OneTenthofOnePercent	Mar 2012	#7
Look - Our Healthcare System Is Really Complicated.....	global1	Mar 2012	#47
No, I did not read this...	MattSh	Mar 2012	#88
only problem is	SuisseBleu	Apr 2012	#162
Well If You Are Going To Decide The Fate Of Healthcare For 300+ Million Americans......	global1	Mar 2012	#8
Why?	Beacool	Mar 2012	#150
That's your job, you fat turdling.	Ikonoklast	Mar 2012	#9
Did you hear that?	Hawkowl	Mar 2012	#10
You should have read the bill before you heard the case!	Dont call me Shirley	Mar 2012	#11
Uh, yes they do. It's part of that whole checks and balances thing.	kestrel91316	Mar 2012	#39
Really? Then what is their role?	Ruby the Liberal	Mar 2012	#46
that's the function of the SC.	KG	Mar 2012	#60
Uh, that is totally a function of the SC.	ElboRuum	Mar 2012	#63
Wait, wut?	Codeine	Mar 2012	#66
Marbury v. Madison	wpelb	Mar 2012	#67
Just because the Supremes took it upon themselves to be the final arbiters	fasttense	Mar 2012	#90
those were really ignorant decisions	newspeak	Mar 2012	#100
If the SC doesn't decide if a law is constitutional who does?	ThomThom	Mar 2012	#70
It's NOT in the Constitution.	fasttense	Mar 2012	#89
you have said it so well....I wish we could make that would work	ThomThom	Mar 2012	#91
AMEN!	MD20	Mar 2012	#92
Scalia just proved himself to be a pure wingnut...	Brooklyn Dame	Mar 2012	#12
How long ago did they know that this hearing was coming up?	julian09	Mar 2012	#13
He's like every other Republican in this country ... waits for Fox news to tell him what it says.	JoePhilly	Mar 2012	#14
Once again, a conservative relies on 'truthiness'	LastLiberal in PalmSprings	Mar 2012	#16
Scalia on the constitution or any legal document: tl;dr	SWTORFanatic	Mar 2012	#17
What does "tl;dr" mean? nt	tblue37	Mar 2012	#72
too long; didn't read n/t	Occulus	Mar 2012	#74
Thanks! nt	tblue37	Mar 2012	#76
Our Fuckin "Supreme Court" is nothing but a Fuckin JOKE	Justice wanted	Mar 2012	#18
I think this is in reference to the severability issue	gratuitous	Mar 2012	#19
I think so too.	savalez	Mar 2012	#37
I agree with you (nt)	Tumbulu	Mar 2012	#49
John Conyers, Steny Hoyer, and Max Baucus agree with him	Neue Regel	Mar 2012	#20
Then why did you take the case?	Dawson Leery	Mar 2012	#21
I suspect they don't have to read it because it was already decided....	wandy	Mar 2012	#22
They Strike it so they don"t have to read it.	CAPHAVOC	Mar 2012	#25
What a lazy ass!	KansDem	Mar 2012	#23
Ok Scalia is a bit of a dick but did any of our esteemed legislators	Leontius	Mar 2012	#24
No they didn't n/t	bbinacan	Mar 2012	#29
LAZY AND LIVING OFF THE GOVERNMENT.	slampoet	Mar 2012	#26
That's your job you nitwit	Swede Atlanta	Mar 2012	#27
No single person has read the entire health care bill.	former9thward	Mar 2012	#28
Excellent point! n/t	bbinacan	Mar 2012	#32
Scalia may have a better memory than many DUers	One_Life_To_Give	Mar 2012	#38
Hmmmm . . .	Jack Rabbit	Mar 2012	#68
I agree with you about the Justices reading it. Some of the lawyers might have read it all.	Jim Lane	Mar 2012	#79
Nice channel that video is posted on.	joshcryer	Mar 2012	#81
So they made up her speech?	former9thward	Mar 2012	#84
She's not saying what the right wingers and you are saying she's saying.	joshcryer	Mar 2012	#85
What is she sayings?	former9thward	Mar 2012	#99
The right wing is trying to imply that she doesn't know what's in it.	joshcryer	Mar 2012	#121
Context	SATIRical	Mar 2012	#115
She is saying that the American people don't know what's in it.	joshcryer	Mar 2012	#120
So you think the American people know what is in those 2700 pages?	former9thward	Mar 2012	#134
Nobody else has read this bill	bbinacan	Mar 2012	#30
This post was hidden by jury decision.	NiloTheAngryLatino	Mar 2012	#31
According to Scalia,	Jamaal510	Mar 2012	#33
I believe comment is related to asking SCOTUS to do the job of Congress.	savalez	Mar 2012	#34
"Why waste all that time reading when I've already made up my mind how I will vote?"	spooky3	Mar 2012	#35
2000 of those 2700 pages are probably "pork."	MD20	Mar 2012	#36
I agree with your point	BB_Troll	Mar 2012	#52
25 lines per page, less than 60 characters per line	FarCenter	Mar 2012	#77
No, we pay you for your "Good looks, charm and personality" you dumb ass. Of course we want you	teddy51	Mar 2012	#40
They say it is double-and-triple-spaced, about the size of a	secondwind	Mar 2012	#41
Why should SCOTUS be any different than Congress?	SomethingFishy	Mar 2012	#42
Fat Tony's	sulphurdunn	Mar 2012	#43
hate to break this to you justice but....	PatrynXX	Mar 2012	#48
Yes, it's your job, asshole!	muntrv	Mar 2012	#50
Then maybe Scalia agrees that H.R.676 Medicare for ALL should have been passed	csziggy	Mar 2012	#51
CBO nightmare	BB_Troll	Mar 2012	#53
That bill never made it out of committee so the CBO never scored it	csziggy	Mar 2012	#65
He's the same fat bastard that said people need more exercise, not healthcare.	magic59	Mar 2012	#54
I'm thinking millions of children are going to laugh all at once	PatrynXX	Mar 2012	#56
At least the Democrats in the Senate tried to block his nomination (yes, that's BITTER sarcasm)	abq e streeter	Mar 2012	#57
Isn't that their job?? n/t	OhioChick	Mar 2012	#58
That's ok with me. RECUSE him.	robinlynne	Mar 2012	#59
For admitting he didn't read the entire law?	onenote	Mar 2012	#111
for saying reading the law would be cruel and unusual punishment which is what he said. Dont	robinlynne	Mar 2012	#123
You really shouldn't opine on things you don't understand	onenote	Mar 2012	#124
That is not the point. Scalia made a joke calling it cruel and unusual punishment. Do you think	robinlynne	Mar 2012	#125
And Breyer jokingly said that he "promised" that he hadn't read every word.	onenote	Mar 2012	#126
I didnt know Breyer said that. Yes I have watched many many hours of the Supreme Court.	robinlynne	Mar 2012	#128
Yes tony I expect you to read it or to read the summations by your clerks.	Botany	Mar 2012	#61
Yeah, damn right I expect it. That's what they are paid to do.	Cass	Mar 2012	#62
Don't the clerks do most of the work?	ThomThom	Mar 2012	#64
On what, exactly, will Scalia be basing his ruling, if not on the law?	Orrex	Mar 2012	#71
I guess this will be 'decision by guess,' and F the majority of Americas, who gives a	RKP5637	Mar 2012	#73
So the court is going to decide on something they refuse to completely understand?	liberal N proud	Mar 2012	#75
I'm no Scalia fan but these attacks on him are ridiculous.	Jim Lane	Mar 2012	#78
if you can read....	unkachuck	Mar 2012	#80
It took me a few weeks. The Justices don't have that luxury.	Jim Lane	Mar 2012	#82
fat tony has plenty of time to go to Repug fundraisers, though, and stuff his face	wordpix	Apr 2012	#155
'I don't buy that he "doesn't have that luxury."'	unkachuck	Apr 2012	#158
Just curious!	MD20	Mar 2012	#83
Sorry, what you want is simply not possible.	Jim Lane	Mar 2012	#104
So they should rule based on what lawyers tell them??	adigal	Mar 2012	#94
Thy should rule based on the record and arguments placed before them.	onenote	Mar 2012	#95
In an adversary system, judges rely heavily on what the lawyers tell them.	Jim Lane	Mar 2012	#105
Since SCOTUS doesn't read "the whole thang...	MD20	Mar 2012	#87
Right??? I was stunned to hear that.	adigal	Mar 2012	#93
You may have been stunned	onenote	Mar 2012	#96
If they are going to get rid of the whole thing	adigal	Mar 2012	#102
They don't need to read the whole thing. They need to read the legal arguments.	onenote	Mar 2012	#103
This message was self-deleted by its author	onenote	Mar 2012	#109
Reading is hard. nt	Javaman	Mar 2012	#98
You can hear it from a CD, do not need to read.	golfguru	Mar 2012	#113
being responcible is difficult. nt	Javaman	Mar 2012	#116
This message was self-deleted by its author	polichick	Mar 2012	#106
Glass-Stegall was 37 pages long, protected the public for 70 years	just1voice	Mar 2012	#107
Well then, Tony, retire now...	FlyByNight	Mar 2012	#108
Both sides agreed that the court didn't have to read the entire law to decide the case.	onenote	Mar 2012	#110
We need a NEW Amendment to US consitution	golfguru	Mar 2012	#112
And exactly how would you enforce this Constitutional amendment?	onenote	Mar 2012	#114
Same way they made sure I read my assignments in college	golfguru	Mar 2012	#117
You are assuming they can all read....	Redford	Mar 2012	#118
Yes, I do expect them to read it. How can they strike it down if they do not read it?	McCamy Taylor	Mar 2012	#119
Why do people insist on displaying their ignorance of the legal system?	onenote	Mar 2012	#122
Justice Scalia doesn't need to read it, when he has right wing talking points	kiranon	Mar 2012	#127
Scalia was never destined to have an "illustrious career"	Art_from_Ark	Mar 2012	#140
Yes. I really want you to do you job.	Herlong	Mar 2012	#130
It would help your position if you understood what the Justices job was.	onenote	Mar 2012	#131
This message was self-deleted by its author	Herlong	Mar 2012	#133
Can't read?	Herlong	Mar 2012	#138
He just proved why Thomas is smart to keep his mouth shut:	yurbud	Mar 2012	#147
He'd rather go duck hunting with Cheney - quack quack	aint_no_life_nowhere	Mar 2012	#148
So why should he be any different from the members of Congress?	Beacool	Mar 2012	#149
Lazy fucker! n/t	Hotler	Apr 2012	#151
Well very few in Congress	Johnson20	Apr 2012	#152

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.